An economics, investment, trading and policy blog with a focus on Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). We seek the truth, avoid the mainstream and are virulently anti-neoliberalism.
My guess is it's about the oil, and about triangulating against Russia, and has little to do with "peace" or with what Iran did or did not do. Just my 2 cents.
Dan, you're almost right: it's about oil but more importantly gas to Europe so as to keep Russian energy out of Europe. Russian energy would lead to further integration with Europe and strengthen the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. The prospect of an increasingly independent EU integrated into an independent SCO is the stuff of nightmares. US hegemonic power would be over. Your two cents are worth a year's subscription to Foreign Affairs and the NYT.
Gareth Porter is usually excellent, but this article is nonsense from the off.
The US and everybody else understood that the Iranian nuclear programme was a civil and scientific one, not a military one. The US was using the civilian nuclear programme as an excuse for regime change, whether through debilitating sanctions (the centrist/realist policy) or possibly as a reason for war (the neoconservative policy). The US policy under Bush and for most of Obama's administration was that Iran could not have any civilian nuclear enrichment, a missile programme and by extension a space programme. All of which adds up to US policy ensuring Iran's economic development in the early twentieth century.
All the sanctions are/were illegal under international law: a civilian nuclear programme is permitted under the NPT, to which Iran is a signatory. Iran's civilian nuclear programme was initiated by the US in the seventies under the Shah's regime.
2 comments:
My guess is it's about the oil, and about triangulating against Russia, and has little to do with "peace" or with what Iran did or did not do. Just my 2 cents.
Dan, you're almost right: it's about oil but more importantly gas to Europe so as to keep Russian energy out of Europe. Russian energy would lead to further integration with Europe and strengthen the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. The prospect of an increasingly independent EU integrated into an independent SCO is the stuff of nightmares. US hegemonic power would be over. Your two cents are worth a year's subscription to Foreign Affairs and the NYT.
Gareth Porter is usually excellent, but this article is nonsense from the off.
The US and everybody else understood that the Iranian nuclear programme was a civil and scientific one, not a military one. The US was using the civilian nuclear programme as an excuse for regime change, whether through debilitating sanctions (the centrist/realist policy) or possibly as a reason for war (the neoconservative policy). The US policy under Bush and for most of Obama's administration was that Iran could not have any civilian nuclear enrichment, a missile programme and by extension a space programme. All of which adds up to US policy ensuring Iran's economic development in the early twentieth century.
All the sanctions are/were illegal under international law: a civilian nuclear programme is permitted under the NPT, to which Iran is a signatory. Iran's civilian nuclear programme was initiated by the US in the seventies under the Shah's regime.
Post a Comment